Sean Azze

Hmmm. Can you (or someone else) elaborate on what a spinning double anamorphic element trick is?

Denial Twist You'll need quicktime to view it. Enjoy.

I just saw the most surreal, amazing video the other night - the new White Stripes clip "The Denial Twist". This thing continually does some sort of camera trick where the perspectives keep changing around the performers as they move from set to set. It almost looks like they shot the whole thing with a fish eye lens, but not really. I can't put my finger on it - does anyone know how they achieved that look? What boggles my mind more than anything is the moment when the White Stripes are towering over this compact car like two giants staring down at a micromachine, and manage to easily slip inside. I think I would get lost for days if I even attempted to pick Michel Gondry's brain. :blink:

Hey Mr. Mullen Thinking back to the last Polish brothers film you did, Northfork had a very distinctive look to it. I was wondering if The Astronaut Farmer would have an overall look that carries throughout the entire film. Thanks again for all the great, informative diary entries!

Yeah Eytan Talk dollars - I'm terribly interested. B)

Hey Wondering if anyone has some dolly track they'd be willing to sell to me. I have a skateboard dolly (this one to be precise - Glideshot ) Thanks again

I'd have to say that's a highly subjective point. I haven't seen the film yet, so I'm not privvy to how 'raw' Weisz was filmed, but I'd say someone's memory of a deceased love one is not always rosy colored. People remember the good and the bad. A perfect example of that can be found in Chris Nolan's director's commentary of "Memento". There is a scene in the film where the protagonist, Leonard, has a memory of his wife that involved her reading a book while he was getting dressed. After asking his wife why she bothers to read the same book so many times, she snaps at him and they end the conversation on a low point. Nolan mentions that he purposely wrote an exchange for Leonard to remember that was not so pleasant. Leonard has several flashes of his wife throughout the film that portray her in a rawer light. But like I said before, I'd have to see the acne in question to know whether or not that was Meirelles intention. :D

I'd have to say you are ignoring Tarantino's masterpiece "Pulp Fiction" when you make the above statement. If you think of how well that film is directed, and the meaning conveyed from the differing stories, you probably wouldn't have such an aversion towards QT's work. For example, if you recall the speech at the end of the film where Jules tells Vincent he's done with the life, and is ready to "walk the earth, like Kane in Kung Fu" there's quite a moral there. Jules' entire outlook is changed after he and Vincent exit the gang's aprtment unscathed after being bombarded with bullets. Vincent takes it lightly. By the sheer fact that the film is told in nonsequential order, you have to watch it a second time and focus on the scene where Vincent gets killed by Butch to truly appreciate the gravity and irony of Jules' words. I didn't think the dialouge in Kill Bill was as catchy and fun to listen to as the stuff in Tarantino's other films, but Bill's "superman speech" is very creative and insightful in a quirky, pop culture sort of way. You don't find those little literary gems in crap like John Carpenters last couple of movies, or the awful slasher flicks with Paris Hlton and the latest scream queen. QT's star may be a little bloated, but give the guy credit. He is an original voice, in spite of his constant homages to other genres. He puts his spin on things, and its refreshing stuff. I'll never get over the "Like a Virgin" interpretation speech at the head of Reservoir Dogs. It takes a warped mind to think of that stuff! The geniuses of this world are usually borderline crazy.

My top two favorite films are "Memento" and the "Back to the Future" trilogy. (for me, BTTF I, II, and III is just a 6 hour film broken up into 3 parts.) I feel the thing these two films have in common is that they are terribly clever. They both have a concept that makes you nod in approval and think to yourself "Why, these bastards are really brilliant." So, I'd like to make films that are quite clever. Films that revolve around ideas that are novel and original, yet never forgetting to make them personal. Should I have a hyper real situation taking place, I still want to feature charcters who are real. Who don't sound scripted. I'd encourage my actors to flub their lines - because after all, people in real life stumble over their words all the time. If something totally surreal happened to one of my characters, I would want him to be profoundly affected by it - cope with it, react like a real person - not just pick up a shotgun and start spewing clever catch phrases. Also, my main characters would often be minorities. I find that Hollywood is oversaturated with white casts. Too often films that offer great black roles usually directly deal with the black experience, or feature a historical figure that is black. "Ray" would have starred Tom Cruise if the producers thought they could get away with it. I'd like to make suspense, fantasy, or sci-fi films where the main character is a minority, yet doesn't have to spend the majority of the film being reminded that he is a minority.

I think the moment a guy gets his arm chopped off and blood is squirting out like the end of a super soaker, its pretty conclusive that this is not the type of violence you'd catch on a broadcast of cnn. There's plenty of films you can pick on where the violence is gratuitous and done in bad taste. Kill Bill is not a film that brings a moral with it or can really be dissected intellectually. Its a film that ascribes to the "suspension of disbelief" phenomena. Its meant to be fun. Its meant to show how far a filmmaker can go. When film was first becoming a main attraction, people sought out movies as a form of escapism. Lighten up, Man! Not every film has to be so heavy handed, intellectually stimulating, a reflection of our society, bla bla bla. Who the hell can sit through American Beauty, The English Patient, In the Mood For Love back to back to back? Theres nothing wrong with a little variety. Gone in Sixty Seconds doesn't have a meaningful moral to it - but poop, its still fun to watch! You can't label everyone who appreciates cinema thats violent and devoid of a meaning a barbarian. Open your mind. I'm a hip hop head, but I still think Leann Rhimes and Patsy Cline sing pretty well.

If you are such a good writer, the coverage will come from the story. Think about it. If the character you are focusing on says something that pertains to another character in the scene, or even stirs some sort of emotion from them, get their reactions. Even if the only thing they are doing is merely staring at the character and not reacting in a big, "silent film" way, you need to cut to a shot of them. It is important we see them, and know that they are in the room. Think to yourself - who has something at stake here? Training the camera on them will emphasise that point. Do that! Go to the location where you will be shooting with your script in hand. Walk through the motions. Think about where you can put the camera and what will visually be interesting. A good director sees every shot of the film in their head as they're reading their script. You don't need a book or theory for that - that comes from the gut.

It was directed by Robert Rodriguez. Tarantino wrote the screenplay and costarred in it, but he didnt direct it. (Incidentally he did direct a scene in Rodriguez's "Sin City")

How I envy you. I wish I had some other interest aside from film, but alas I am cursed with the obsession of becoming a success in an industry where the success rate is almost nonexistent. I'm not much older than you, and in a similar position in that I'm just following my dreams and trying to put some work together to market myself as a filmmaker. But yet I think I'm experienced enough to tell you this much - the idea of a career in film cannot just be a passing fancy. This has got to be a passion that consumes every waking moment of your life. While you eat breakfast you should be thinking about potential shooting locations, sitting on the toilet conjuring up camera angles, and dreaming in bed about story concepts. You should get a tingle in your spine just from the scent of a fresh roll of film. Unless you have a relative who has connections in the industry, or enough patience and financial backing from your parents to wait for your aspirations to materialize into something real, this is not the field to get into. You may have recently discovered that you're the second coming of Hitchcock and it wouldn't amount to squat. Because when it comes down to it, a lot of times the best work never sees the light of day. Film doesn't follow the same progression a 'normal' career follows where after graduation your life begins. I've had a bachelor's degree in my hand for close to a year, and I'm still searching for a catalyst to my hopes and dreams. If you love it, man - then by all means, film school or no film school, just be around it. Learn everything you can. Be ready to be referred to as "hey you", and to put up with rejection and bullshit. Should you catch that big break, all I can say is please take me with you. :lol: But keep in mind, there's plenty of money in engineering and not as many sad stories or for that matter, competition.

I enjoyed Million Dollar Baby quite a bit. I loved the pacing because I felt like it really set the mood. The lighting was dark and drab, so it matched the setting perfectly for a seedy sport where punishing your opponent to a bloody pulp is how you achieve a victory. The acting was great. There were a few moments I would deem "Hollywood", but for the most part the film felt realistic. And the final quarter of the film completely threw me on my ass and took me out of the comfortable mood I was in. I think every great story should have surprises. NOW, this being said, were the above mentioned characteristics the reasons why Million Dollar Baby won so many awards? In my opinion, NO, absolutely not. I'd say campaigning from the studio, the participation of cinema legends, and the controversial subject matter is what garnered this thing awards. Awards are so subjective - think of the dozens of films every year that are so special and yet get overlooked because they don't have the pull that Clint Eastwood has.

The other side of that argument is when a film has a spectacular opening credit sequence, but the other 90 minutes of the flick are a complete letdown. "Panic Room" had a great intro with 3D credits scaling skyscrapers, yet the rest of the film was relatively dissapointing. (then again, my opinion may have been influenced by how much I enjoyed Fincher's previous films - particularly Seven and Fight Club)

I was thinking how much I love the opening credits to the Coen Brothers' "The Big Lebowski" (shot by Roger Deakins). From the moment when a blank screen covered in bowling alley symbols opens up to reveal the back of a set of 10 bowling pins, I knew I was in for something fun. I love the ECU of the ashtrays, the score cards, and the air vents. The shallow focus shot of the stereotypical bowler's gut waving in celebration of a strike is truly hilarious. And who could forget that tracking shot of a ball rolling down the lane right to the very end (seamlessly accomplished using some sort of remote control car if I remember correctly) Oh, and the music kicks ass. A song so fitting for the scenario, you can imagine it playing over the loudspeaker of the alley. Definitely my favorite opening credit sequence.

By the way, was Spanglish shot on super 16?

Thanks Mr. Mullen It was getting lonely here... :blink:

I take it no one knows what I'm talking about. Nevermind...

Kubrick - arguably the most meticulous director in cinema history. The shadow of the helicopter in the opening of The Shining - one of the most obvious goofs in a film. Anybody know any lore behind this "mistake". Did Kubrick, the man who would shoot 50 takes of a scene, watch the dailies, notice the ashtray in the background had one cigarette butt in it when two would work better, and reshoot the thing another 50 takes, intend for this shadow to be visible for some reason? Any thoughts?

Wow, I'm catching flashbacks of crabby college professors. Nobody cuts you guys a check for the advice though, so I'll keep the spitballs on my desk. (notice the new signature?)

Director Hideo Nakata is completely blind. Well, at least thats the explanation he gave for "The Ring Two"...

To each his own. I'm stating one man's opinion - not the critics, whom I often disagree with. (I still think Shyamalan's "The Village" is underrated.) See what I mean - would you say your opinion has more validity over mine? It happened. The film was based on a true story about a man who inhabitated an airport for many years. I'm not arguing with the realism of the event. I'm complaining about the way the characters carry themselves at certain points. Because its been a long time since I've seen the Terminal, I can't give you numerous examples. But I do remember a particular sequence where Navorski is exiting the airport and all the characters are cheering him on. The celebration of his release from the terminal was so corny, it felt more like satire than genuine emotion. I won't argue with that. I'm a huge fan of his work. No. The family that saw Titanic over 40 times was crazy. Oh , and in reference to this being a cinematography forum - the day Tim Tyler threatens me with excommunication from this site is the day I stop talking about other aspects of film, which are often discussed here.

Bad Boys has a look to it where the colors are so saturated (I believe thats the corect terminology) It has a distinguishing look. Anyone whose seen it knows what I'm talking about. My question - how did they achieve that? Does that have something to do with a digital intermediate? Or the processing? Does lighting have anything to do with achieving that look? Thanks

The only reason The Terminal is worth seeing is either for the cinematography or because of Tom Hanks performance. Unless you like a pure, innocent, airy fairytale kind of movie a la Frank Capra (Mr. Deeds and Its a wonderful life Frank Capra mind you) this thing is not meant for you. I was expecting a realistic account of a true story. Instead I saw a piece full of characters that would only exist in a childrens story. Now Catch me if you can - thats a FUN movie. A lot of style there. Personally, my favorite Spielberg film of all time (yep...I said it)